Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Mediterranean, Appalachian, Pangaea Impact Crater


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#18 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 31 March 2015 - 05:03 PM

So you are suggesting that physics as we know them are wrong? 



#19 Kalopin

Kalopin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 31 March 2015 - 05:37 PM

So you are suggesting that physics as we know them are wrong? 

not all, but a strong majority. there is tangible evidence to back this...

...the biggest distortion concerning this research are current beliefs within impact physics...

see- Gerta Keller's research:

 http://massextinctio...n.edu/chicxulub 11.Conclusions- based on 30 years of research

 

see- Massive Dinosaur soft tissue discovery in China- includes skin and feathers:

http://thetruthwins....n-and-feathers  [?link?]

 

bones do not last for 65 million years. the last of the dinosaurs were killed off 13kya...

pyramids and temples beneath an ejecta blanket of limestone prove that civilizations are much older...

evolutionists are wrong, creationists are wrong, Panspermia is correct...and this research will be able to [already has] prove this...

 

...if you give enough study to this, you will find that the remnants of Atlantis stretch from Xibalba out past the Bimini road: 

http://www.ancient-o...tlantis-002070  [sic] [?link?]

"Does Bimini road lead to the lost civilization of Atlantis"

...and this is just the start to what will be understood by examining this research...

No doubt- truly among the most magnificent finds in recent times... ;-]


Edited by Buffy, 01 April 2015 - 11:14 AM.
Fixed links


#20 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 31 March 2015 - 07:01 PM

You cite out of date links, the dinosaur soft tissue has been explained http://www.livescien...oft-tissue.html your link leads to a 404 error, I can't find any reference to feathers, I'm not sure what your first link has to do with what you are proposing, and Atlantis? Really? Have you ever seen the Ocean bottom maps? 



#21 Kalopin

Kalopin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 10:34 AM

You cite out of date links, the dinosaur soft tissue has been explained http://www.livescien...oft-tissue.html your link leads to a 404 error, I can't find any reference to feathers, I'm not sure what your first link has to do with what you are proposing, and Atlantis? Really? Have you ever seen the Ocean bottom maps? 

NO! the dinosaur tissue is NOT due to lack of understanding of the fossilization process- it is a lack of understanding of the dating process! They try to explain it away as 65 million year old fossils and somehow some iron preserved the tissue- what about the feathers? did iron preserve them as well? What a joke?.,,,and people [such as yourself] have no problem in believing such nonsense? ...and they misquote Mary Schweitzer, as she never said the tissue could be 65 million years old...

...and anyone who would believe that bones could last for 65 million years in any environment, not only needs to do more study, but may also need a padded room! ['nuts'!]

 

There may be a reason the links don't work- you will have to type the title into a search engine and find the specific link I am referring to, as this does not surprise me. There is a strong effort to further distort reality and destroy human history...[many reasons!]

 

Have you studied the sea floors? As far as Atlantis- there are plenty of ruins scattered between Xibalba and Bimini ...and, just as Plato had stated, these ruins follow straight back to between the pillars of Hercules. When the Ozarks are pushed to the Betic Cordilleras they align almost perfectly and this will align the ruins throughout the gulf of Mexico directly in front and between the strait of Gibraltar... Once you have given this enough study, I believe you will find no other option- "IF" what Plato claims is a tangible place, then this would have to be it...

 

...and pay attention to the sea floors throughout the Atlantic- see where the scarring and scraping is still so apparent from the continental drift? Notice where the scraping ends, at the Bermuda hotspot? This is where the heat from this mantle plume raised an entire continental shelf up, pushing down at Belize to form the Cayman trench. At this point Cuba, Puerto Rico and the rest of the island chain broke loose from the north American plate to form the Caribbean sea and gulf of Mexico... Have you heard this before? Has anyone given this notice? Maybe someone else should give better study to the sea floor?

 

Thanks for your attempts at rebuttal. Each question and argument you present will find its explanation only within these three impact scenarios- the Moon struck the Mediterranean 13kya, a comet hit the Hudson bay 10.5kya and a meteor impacted the Mississippi embayment on December 16, 1811. Please find one detail that will argue against these truths [- I will gladly cede my beliefs! ;-]



#22 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 11:02 AM

NO! the dinosaur tissue is NOT due to lack of understanding of the fossilization process- it is a lack of understanding of the dating process! They try to explain it away as 65 million year old fossils and somehow some iron preserved the tissue- what about the feathers? did iron preserve them as well? What a joke?.,,,and people [such as yourself] have no problem in believing such nonsense? ...and they misquote Mary Schweitzer, as she never said the tissue could be 65 million years old...

...and anyone who would believe that bones could last for 65 million years in any environment, not only needs to do more study, but may also need a padded room! ['nuts'!]

 

There may be a reason the links don't work- you will have to type the title into a search engine and find the specific link I am referring to, as this does not surprise me. There is a strong effort to further distort reality and destroy human history...[many reasons!]

 

Have you studied the sea floors? As far as Atlantis- there are plenty of ruins scattered between Xibalba and Bimini ...and, just as Plato had stated, these ruins follow straight back to between the pillars of Hercules. When the Ozarks are pushed to the Betic Cordilleras they align almost perfectly and this will align the ruins throughout the gulf of Mexico directly in front and between the strait of Gibraltar... Once you have given this enough study, I believe you will find no other option- "IF" what Plato claims is a tangible place, then this would have to be it...

 

...and pay attention to the sea floors throughout the Atlantic- see where the scarring and scraping is still so apparent from the continental drift? Notice where the scraping ends, at the Bermuda hotspot? This is where the heat from this mantle plume raised an entire continental shelf up, pushing down at Belize to form the Cayman trench. At this point Cuba, Puerto Rico and the rest of the island chain broke loose from the north American plate to form the Caribbean sea and gulf of Mexico... Have you heard this before? Has anyone given this notice? Maybe someone else should give better study to the sea floor?

 

Thanks for your attempts at rebuttal. Each question and argument you present will find its explanation only within these three impact scenarios- the Moon struck the Mediterranean 13kya, a comet hit the Hudson bay 10.5kya and a meteor impacted the Mississippi embayment on December 16, 1811. Please find one detail that will argue against these truths [- I will gladly cede my beliefs! ;-]

 

 

I'll say this again, objects do not bounce when they hit the earth, they do not scrape, if the moon has hit the earth 12,000 years ago we would still have a gaseous silicate atmosphere, all life would have been extinguished, Your link did not work, I am not nuts, you are making extraordinary claims you need to back them up with more than your own say so.

 

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence... 



#23 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 11:23 AM

The links above have been fixed. It should be noted that these items are controversial, and you need to actually defend them reasonably.

 

Also "I saw it on the Internet!" isn't enough, and sites like the two you've linked here are not terribly convincing.

 

Amusingly enough the first one about soft dino tissue links to a Smithsonian article to lend itself some legitimacy, but if you read the article (and I recommend you do) it debunks most of the contentious issues and explains the background of why it's gotten so much airplay (yes, our friends the Young Earth Creationists strike again).

 

For our international audience: 60 minutes (which is also quoted in the same story) has gone from being a paragon of journalism to a laughingstock peddling Benghazi conspiracy theories, and isn't what it used to be as a source of actual facts.

 

 

All I'm armed with is research, :phones:

Buffy


  • Moontanman likes this

#24 Kalopin

Kalopin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 11:29 AM

I'll say this again, objects do not bounce when they hit the earth, they do not scrape, if the moon has hit the earth 12,000 years ago we would still have a gaseous silicate atmosphere, all life would have been extinguished, Your link did not work, I am not nuts, you are making extraordinary claims you need to back them up with more than your own say so.

 

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence... 

I assert it is current belief that is the outrageous and extraordinary claims...

...as there is NO backing for any of the physics or dating. This is NOT my 'say so'. I have and will provide ample evidence for each and every claim and you will not be able to defend a single one of the current beliefs with any evidence other than the beliefs within a flawed impact physics and a faulty dating process, that are presently just beliefs with NO proof.

 

I, on the other hand, have every single detail within the geography, history, observable effects,... to back my claims...

Yes, believe it or not- this is factual and what is currently being taught, with regards to these events, is a fanciful belief- myth-"fairy tales and stories"...

 

do not 'kill the messenger' but help to correct science and history...

find the most learned professors you know, bring them here and have them argue their point of belief...and watch as they fail, pitifully to the truth!



#25 Kalopin

Kalopin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 11:51 AM

 (yes, our friends the Young Earth Creationists strike again).

 

My research will prove that the Moon has impacted the Earth on several occasion. This is what the Mayans were mapping. -The planet's wobble on its axis, the 100,000 year glacial cycle, the 26,000 year processional cycle, all coincides with the Moon's orbital elements, 1/2 a Baktun, approx.13ky- the Moon recedes back to Earth's magnetopause, forcing it to begin to spin in retrograde upon this force and allowing it to come back inward in close orbit. If there is any imbalance, such as a supercontinent all on one side or too much water-weight near the equator, there will likely be an impact...

 

This research will prove that dinosaurs died out 13k years ago, along with the megaflora, megafauna, older dryas,... that were able to grow so much larger and live so much longer during the Pleistocene, because there was less gravity, electromagnetism, a shorter day and a lot less radiation in the atmosphere. the Pleistocene was the time to live on this planet, it was much more suited for life!

 

No, as I have previously stated- the 'creatards' and 'evolutionuts' are both sadly mistaken... Soft tissue and feathers are proof the dinosaurs are much younger and the pyramids and temples buried beneath melt rock on the Yucatan peninsula are proof the man and civilizations are much older...

this does not help either case and only proves the theory of Panspermia to be correct!  

 

...go through it and see what I am talking about- this has been proven and only has yet to be understood by academia...

after you study it all and see, will you help to confront the ones who already know I am correct but are deliberately marginalizing this data?

Thanks ;-]



#26 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 11:54 AM

I assert it is current belief that is the outrageous and extraordinary claims...

 

Um, "current belief" can be translated as the most widely accepted by experts in the field in question, so by definition they're not "extraordinary" or "outrageous."

 

You can "assert" all you want, but that's really a pointless exercise if you don't include any convincing information, and actually make some attempt to justify the theory in your own words. We're about discussion here, and if you make claims backed only by a couple of links to conspiracy theory sites, you're really not convincing.

 

"Asserting" stuff just makes you sound crazy or stupid.

 

...as there is NO backing for any of the physics or dating. 

 

Well, not if you don't accept physics as it's widely understood.

 

That'd be kind of an obstacle to getting anyone to listen to you. So far you've basically implied that everything that Newton and Einstein have defined about the laws of motion are false.

 

You're welcome to try to prove that, but I doubt you'll get very far.

 

 

This is NOT my 'say so'. I have and will provide ample evidence for each and every claim and you will not be able to defend a single one of the current beliefs with any evidence other than the beliefs within a flawed impact physics and a faulty dating process, that are presently just beliefs with NO proof.

 

We're waiting! :cheer:

 

 

Please proceed, Governor, :phones:

Buffy


  • CraigD and Moontanman like this

#27 Kalopin

Kalopin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 12:23 PM

Um, "current belief" can be translated as the most widely accepted by experts in the field in question, so by definition they're not "extraordinary" or "outrageous."

 

You can "assert" all you want, but that's really a pointless exercise if you don't include any convincing information, and actually make some attempt to justify the theory in your own words. We're about discussion here, and if you make claims backed only by a couple of links to conspiracy theory sites, you're really not convincing.

 

"Asserting" stuff just makes you sound crazy or stupid.

 

 

Well, not if you don't accept physics as it's widely understood.

 

That'd be kind of an obstacle to getting anyone to listen to you. So far you've basically implied that everything that Newton and Einstein have defined about the laws of motion are false.

 

You're welcome to try to prove that, but I doubt you'll get very far.

 

 

 

We're waiting! :cheer:

 

 

Please proceed, Governor, :phones:

Buffy

Oh, that is funny!

NO! This agrees with Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Tesla, Bruno,...

They have been misunderstood and this ignorance has caused distortions within the educational system...

 

Do you believe that the scientists are mistaken?

-who claim that 10 million tons of impact spherules cover four continents?

-who claim these impact spherules contain nanodiamonds that form over temps of 2200* Celsius,making it impossible for any airburst or serial impact?

-who claim that there was a 'great die-off' approx. 13kya?

-who claim plants and animals grew larger during the Pleistocene?

-who claim all land masses were once joined together, as Pangaea?

Do you believe this evidence to be just conjecture?

Do you believe it to be more outrageous to believe that all these events tie into extraterrestrial impacts, or to believe that- what is it you believe occurred?

Do you believe it to be more likely that mountains developed over long periods, or is it more likely that most were instantly formed from a catastrophic force?

 

I already know. I have been to these places and studied the geography. The Appalachian mountains [as well as all others] were piled and stacked instantly when the Moon impacted the Mediterranean 13kya....\and, yes, I have given you plenty proof, just study the satellite view and you will eventually have to come to the same conclusion...



#28 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 02:24 PM

Oh, that is funny!

NO! This agrees with Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Tesla, Bruno,...

They have been misunderstood and this ignorance has caused distortions within the educational system...

 

Can't wait for a full explanation from you about how they were "misunderstood." :rolleyes:

 

Let's just pick one of your silly "theories:"

 

Do you believe it to be more likely that mountains developed over long periods, or is it more likely that most were instantly formed from a catastrophic force?

 

So, would you like to explain how you get this formation instantaneously?

 

struct2.jpg

 

Takes a little time to create those layers and to move them with a multi-million megaton blast without obliterating them? 

 

C'mon you can do it.

 

Note that this is a test and there will be consequences for providing a silly answer based on links to conspiracy sites.

 

I honestly recommend that you spend more time reading John McPhee instead.

 

 

If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone, :phones:

Buffy



#29 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 02:26 PM

The Appalachian mountains [as well as all others] were piled and stacked instantly when the Moon impacted the Mediterranean


Kalopin - I'm going to try to come into this without preconceived notions. Can you give me an estimate for how much energy would be required to raise a mountain? Like, if you have X amount of mass and you want to raise it into a cone of Y height, you need Z amount of energy? That should be a pretty basic starting point for the math, right?
  • Buffy and CraigD like this

#30 Kalopin

Kalopin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 03:21 PM

Kalopin - I'm going to try to come into this without preconceived notions. Can you give me an estimate for how much energy would be required to raise a mountain? Like, if you have X amount of mass and you want to raise it into a cone of Y height, you need Z amount of energy? That should be a pretty basic starting point for the math, right?

Please find the current belief for the exhumation process to form the Ozarks... [just to pick one]

 

If you would like to see my opinion on the current impact physics 'math', just go to "The Last Time the Moon impacted the Earth was approximately 12,900 Years Ago" @cosmoquest.org

...and I have already provided a link on this thread for the belief in current impact physics...and if you would study Gerta Keller's research, you would see how it has already been determined to be flawed... 

 

It would take a lot more force to form such mountain ranges that exist by just convection, uplift and subduction,...from continental drift and/or rebound... it would take the catastrophic force of an impact from just such a source, as an orbiting satellite the size, mass, weight, volume, density, in orbit and with this amount of retrograde spin and electromagnetic repulsion...

 

why, can you show me the math? ;-]



#31 Kalopin

Kalopin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 03:40 PM

Can't wait for a full explanation from you about how they were "misunderstood." :rolleyes:

 

Let's just pick one of your silly "theories:"

 
 

 

So, Mt. Everest is marine limestone, :phones:

Buffy

I guess we could just take one of the most important ones from Einstein, E=MC2?

 

The photon is an exhaust emission, a leftover from particle explosions emitting cosmic rays, radiation...

Nikola Tesla, as well as many of his constituents at the time [including Einstein] believed that cosmic rays can travel anywhere from fifty to five-hundred times the speed of light...

Voyager1's findings concur- mass amounts of charged particles, high energy cosmic rays are trapped at a star's heliosphere and 'swirl' in retrograde, as huge storms of radiation- where there is no light...

 

How was Einstein misunderstood? Einstein never said that nothing was faster than light and that light travelled at a certain speed. It is quite fine to use a certain speed for light to measure distance [-time and space] but that is not the observed reaction of photons...

 

If you would like to understand more, please see- "The Photon a Master of Time and Space" @thunderbolts.info 

this may help: "Electrostatic Theory is wrong" @"Our Electric Universe...and Antigravity" http://spiralperiodi...eory-is-wrong/   [sic]["link-again?]

...much closer to the observable realities? ;-]


Edited by Kalopin, 01 April 2015 - 03:43 PM.


#32 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 03:42 PM

Oh, that is funny!

NO! This agrees with Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Tesla, Bruno,...

They have been misunderstood and this ignorance has caused distortions within the educational system...

 

Do you believe that the scientists are mistaken?

-who claim that 10 million tons of impact spherules cover four continents?

-who claim these impact spherules contain nanodiamonds that form over temps of 2200* Celsius,making it impossible for any airburst or serial impact?

-who claim that there was a 'great die-off' approx. 13kya?

-who claim plants and animals grew larger during the Pleistocene?

-who claim all land masses were once joined together, as Pangaea?

Do you believe this evidence to be just conjecture?

Do you believe it to be more outrageous to believe that all these events tie into extraterrestrial impacts, or to believe that- what is it you believe occurred?

Do you believe it to be more likely that mountains developed over long periods, or is it more likely that most were instantly formed from a catastrophic force?

 

I already know. I have been to these places and studied the geography. The Appalachian mountains [as well as all others] were piled and stacked instantly when the Moon impacted the Mediterranean 13kya....\and, yes, I have given you plenty proof, just study the satellite view and you will eventually have to come to the same conclusion...

 

 

I think your knowledge of geology is fatally flawed, Pangea existed 300 million years ago, not during the pleistocene.

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

 

Pangaea or Pangea (/pænˈə/[1]) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras.[2] It formed approximately 300 million years ago and then began to break apart after about 100 million years.[3] Unlike the present Earth, much of the land mass was in the southern hemisphere. Pangaea was the first reconstructed supercontinent and it was surrounded by a super ocean, known as Panthalassa.

 

 

Again, objects impacting the Earth do not bounce, scrape, or otherwise do anything but impact and stay there, an object as large as the moon would be torn into millions of pieces by gravitational stress, it would not gouge the surface and continue on... An object as large as the moon hitting the earth would have turned the entire Earth into a molten sphere with a gaseous rock atmosphere, no life would have survived at all. 


Edited by Moontanman, 01 April 2015 - 03:47 PM.


#33 Kalopin

Kalopin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 04:08 PM

Can't wait for a full explanation from you about how they were "misunderstood." :rolleyes:

 

Let's just pick one of your silly "theories:"

 
 

 

So, would you like to explain how you get this formation instantaneously?

 

struct2.jpg

 

Takes a little time to create those layers and to move them with a multi-million megaton blast without obliterating them? 

 

C'mon you can do it.

 

Note that this is a test and there will be consequences for providing a silly answer based on links to conspiracy sites.

 

I honestly recommend that you spend more time reading John McPhee instead.

 

 

If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone, :phones:

Buffy

I hope that you will understand that the picture you posted is a great example of impact or volcanic melt rock- from an impact or eruption to instantly melt and to quickly cool to solid forming this structure...

 

Please give close study to the "Kasha-Katuwe Tent rocks" http://en.wikipedia....tional_Monument

They are all limestone, not volcanic. All this limestone fell from the sky among the ejecta blanket at impact 13kya, falling as 'wet sand on a beach', though molten and quickly hardened.

...and this impact will explain all the unusual anomalies throughout the southwest U.S., Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Chile,...

 

[...or- you could give me the current belief for the formation process for all these structures?

 

It comes down to- Were the pyramids and temples [on the Yucatan, over Chicxulub crater] built within caves and beneath water or were they covered from an impact ejecta blanket?

What percentage of possibility would you give?



#34 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 04:15 PM

I guess we could just take one of the most important ones from Einstein, E=MC2?

 

The photon is an exhaust emission, a leftover from particle explosions emitting cosmic rays, radiation...

Nikola Tesla, as well as many of his constituents at the time [including Einstein] believed that cosmic rays can travel anywhere from fifty to five-hundred times the speed of light...

Voyager1's findings concur- mass amounts of charged particles, high energy cosmic rays are trapped at a star's heliosphere and 'swirl' in retrograde, as huge storms of radiation- where there is no light...

 

Well yes, but Nicola Tesla was not a fan of Relativity, so he didn't accept Einstein's speed limit. (For those of you interested, here's the original source article with the Tesla quote).

 

Now in that same link is new news that CERN is reporting that they've measured *neutrinos* going faster than light, but cosmic rays do not and there's no evidence of that anywhere (except on crazy conspiracy theory sites).

 

Now if you bother to work through [math]E=mc^2[/math] it is indeed the fact that Einstein really only proves you can't go AT the speed of light because at that point your mass becomes infinite, and the only reason photons can go that fast are that they are basically massless.

 

This has led to speculation--really only by folks who haven't done the math--that therefore Einstein says you could go faster. But actually one of the weird outcomes of the math is that if you go faster than light, time is negative. So you'd have to go back in time if you wanted to go faster, so:

 

 

How was Einstein misunderstood? Einstein never said that nothing was faster than light and that light travelled at a certain speed. It is quite fine to use a certain speed for light to measure distance [-time and space] but that is not the observed reaction of photons...

 

No, the folks that "misunderstood" him were only the folks who were unqualified to interpret what he was proving anyway. 

 

That's kind of meaningless in terms of the actual science being done, and hardly proves to be a "conspiracy to hide the truth" or "overturns all the theories." Sorry.

 

If you would like to understand more, please see- "The Photon a Master of Time and Space" @thunderbolts.info 

this may help: "Electrostatic Theory is wrong" @"Our Electric Universe...and Antigravity" http://spiralperiodi...eory-is-wrong/   [sic]["link-again?]

...much closer to the observable realities? ;-]

 

Continuing to link to such silly sites really proves nothing.

 

Because you won't even address direct questions and refuse to provide any real data, explanations or anything else that might be relevant to an actual intelligent discussion, we've moved this whole thing to the Silly Claims forum.

 

As a reminder to visitors, you really don't want to end up here. It's basically our mechanism for making fun of you.

 

 

The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane, :phones:

Buffy